Have to agree. I don't use Apple stuff myself but I've watched them doing support with a 78-year old friend and they were amazingly patient and helpful.
There's another way, if you're willing to do some support.... a well set-up Linux box, which you update from time to time (maybe monthly?), should perform well. Non-techies have relatively simple needs and don't get into much trouble by clicking on "bad" stuff. Train them to avoid phishing and the like, and they'll be good to go.
Today most basic users just need a browser and something to view photos with.
My wife, the ultimate non-techie, uses a Linux box that I set up and she doesn't even know it's Linux, nor does she care.
I do limited support, like updating software every few weeks, and other than that nothing is really needed except on infrequent occasions.
The problem wasn't with writing a bad review of a bad product. The problem came when I received a really good product, that deserved a good review. I would look like a shill even though I was telling the truth.
For instance, I reviewed practically the whole Brainwavz audio product line. They make very good products. I'm an electrical engineer who did professional audio work for quite a few years, and I think I know what I'm talking about. So I gave Brainwavz a lot of good reviews because that was the honest truth. But I was accused of shilling and selling out, even though I was careful to point out product shortcomings as well as merits.
Did I really need over a dozen free headsets? Hardly. (And no, I won't sell them off because that's very unethical.) I just wanted to give genuine feedback in the hopes that it would be useful.
But I'm done. As the commenter above noted, it's a scummy world out there, and for every company that truly wants an honest review (Brainwavz was really good about it, they are very ethical), there's a dozen that don't.
I was for quite a while a high rated Amazon review (I'm still on the "top reviewer" list) and I get a LOT of offers from companies to send me products in return for a review. It's interesting how that works... and note up front that I do very little of this any longer, primarily because accepting such offers harms my reputation as a reviewer no matter how honest my reviews were.
I got some really laughable emails saying things like, "We'll send you a product in exchange for a five-star review." Nope. No thanks. Or, "please post review with 3 pcs. pictures." Thanks but I do reviews my own way.
In responding to some of the offers, when I state that I say what I think and write reviews on behalf of the prospective buyer, not the seller, a lot of the free offers disappeared. But some remained, and when I received a bad product and wrote an unfavorable review, some manufacturers demanded that I remove it (not going to happen, if you sell a bad product, live with it).
But it got really distasteful so now I generally review things that I bought on my own.
However, I can easily see how the system has become very corrupt, and so I just don't take free products from manufacturers any longer.
Yep. And it is fun. You can pick up a $20 sextant off Amazon to play with (although you'd be better off with a more serious instrument). Like typewriters and other analog tools it slows you down and makes you think.
The "makes you think" part is what's really important here. Thinking leads to understanding... sounds pretty valuable to me.
I have to agree. Though it's quite common to use 21st century thought and practice to pass judgment on someone from another era where thought and practice differed greatly, there's some logic lacking in that. We might say that we're glad society has advanced since earlier times (to the extent that it has; I see both gains and losses), but to claim that someone such as Jefferson should be condemned for being a man of his era is a bit much.
Of course for some people (I'm thinking of a poster just below this thread), anything is excuse enough for an anti-American rant combined with a complete willingness to ignore the history of his/her own country, which undoubtedly can be criticized at least as much.
It is all a setup for Windows 11. Windows 11 will be subscription based even they will not be able to run non-subscription Word or Excel.
This may be a blessing in disguise. People may have strong incentives or even be forced to get away from Windows once and for all. For those who truly have no choice (whether due to genuinely irreplaceable mission-critical software or corporate fiat), they will pay up on a monthly basis (no doubt 10% discount for paying a year in advance or some such).
I'd like to believe it will send many people to Linux (sadly, not likely), but Apple is the more likely beneficiary... unless they get on the subscription bandwagon, too.
I did that (hide the Windows 10 install update). Guess what? When I "check for updates" it's back, and selected by default. What are also back are the other updates I've hidden that backport telemetry to Windows 8.1 (although they at least aren't force-selected for install). Hiding does no good.
I have Windows 8.1 on a partition for use when I absolutely can't avoid doing something under Windows (thankfully not often). Otherwise I never even touch that steaming pile and run off my Linux partition, where I can get work done without having to watch my back, not just for hackers, but to protect myself from the vendor that wants our trust and does everything possible to lose it.
This is probably politically incorrect to say but, whatever you think of NSA.... I'm impressed with the fact that they've assembled a core staff of brilliant mathematicians who do amazing things... whether you like those things or not.
What you're saying is that his conclusions are politically incorrect and don't agree with what you feel compelled to believe, for whatever reasons.
I am not qualified to say who's right and who's wrong here. But I keep an open mind and listen to reasoned argument. The extremes (flat out deniers on one side and cataclysm mongers on the other) do neither.
So the woman must go find a career and work her ass off to be something, and raising a family has no value, right?
What has value is unencumbered freedom of choice. If a woman chooses to be an engineer, that is a valid choice. If a woman chooses to stay home and raise a family, that too is a valid choice; if she combines both, that's another valid choice.
We go wrong when we assume, based on our own values and choices, what someone else should choose to do. It's not up to us, it's up to them.
Definitely a slashdot editor's error, but besides poor editing, it seems like slashdot posts a lot of material that is poorly "reserched" with misleading headlines and questionable content.
I've seen this in places I've been too. Management will claim innocence and make a big show of punishing people lower in the organization. Looks like this process has already begun.
A few rogue engineers my foot.
Rogue engineers --- any engineers --- are not trusted with policy decisions of this magnitude. But they are, of course, set up to take the heat when it comes.
"I was just following orders" isn't going to cut it, though.
Except you've got the context wrong. I was referring to IBM as it existed some while ago, before they joined the billable hours ratrace that you describe all too well.
SJWs find an issue in everything. Their solution strikes me as being heavily biased toward quotas and reverse discrimination. They're not so interested in root causes. Finding and remedying root causes is work and work and whining just don't mix well for them.
Only a stupid company (or project or what-have-you) would fail to take advantage of talent. That's one thing I admired about the IBM of some years ago. They made full use of the talent pool without regard to race or gender (at least that's how it appeared to me from the outside). And that's the real answer: Make sure there are no untoward barriers to entry[1], and then make use of the talent that presents itself.
Anything else, like bemoaning imbalances and immediately ascribing that to prejudice, is just lazy SJW whining, pointing fingers and looking for problems without being willing to work toward real solutions.
[1] By this I do not mean take in any "underrepresented" member regardless of qualifications or ability. I mean instead, ensure that anyone with ability and interest is not excluded arbitrarily. For instance, give scholarships and work-study opportunities to people with talent but who can't otherwise afford college.
Professional behavior doesn't differ by gender. Even the words should be the same.
I never have to treat the women I work with differently because of their 'emotional state' or any gender issue.
I suggest that this is true because you instinctively treat people well and act in a professional manner. You may in fact be treating men and women differently without thinking that you are.
But the point is not that it's a problem, but that it's right. You're treating people as they would like to be treated. You're being considerate. You're keeping things on a professional, respectful plane.
If everyone did that, on both "sides" (as if there should even be "sides"), there would be few issues. And more productive work would definitely get done because the workplace would present a desirable environment conducive to doing work instead of having the destructive distraction of dealing with problem people.
Another of the LTBO crowd (Looking To Be Offended). Make excuses instead of looking for root causes and tackling those... but that would be work, wouldn't it? That would be hard, so much harder than just placing blame on the evil white people.
Excuses and complaints don't cut it. There are minority members who rose from difficult circumstances and made it big. Here's a hint: they didn't rise to the top by complaining.
Slashdot Mirror
Have to agree. I don't use Apple stuff myself but I've watched them doing support with a 78-year old friend and they were amazingly patient and helpful.
There's another way, if you're willing to do some support .... a well set-up Linux box, which you update from time to time (maybe monthly?), should perform well. Non-techies have relatively simple needs and don't get into much trouble by clicking on "bad" stuff. Train them to avoid phishing and the like, and they'll be good to go.
Today most basic users just need a browser and something to view photos with.
My wife, the ultimate non-techie, uses a Linux box that I set up and she doesn't even know it's Linux, nor does she care.
I do limited support, like updating software every few weeks, and other than that nothing is really needed except on infrequent occasions.
The problem wasn't with writing a bad review of a bad product. The problem came when I received a really good product, that deserved a good review. I would look like a shill even though I was telling the truth.
For instance, I reviewed practically the whole Brainwavz audio product line. They make very good products. I'm an electrical engineer who did professional audio work for quite a few years, and I think I know what I'm talking about. So I gave Brainwavz a lot of good reviews because that was the honest truth. But I was accused of shilling and selling out, even though I was careful to point out product shortcomings as well as merits.
Did I really need over a dozen free headsets? Hardly. (And no, I won't sell them off because that's very unethical.) I just wanted to give genuine feedback in the hopes that it would be useful.
But I'm done. As the commenter above noted, it's a scummy world out there, and for every company that truly wants an honest review (Brainwavz was really good about it, they are very ethical), there's a dozen that don't.
I was for quite a while a high rated Amazon review (I'm still on the "top reviewer" list) and I get a LOT of offers from companies to send me products in return for a review. It's interesting how that works ... and note up front that I do very little of this any longer, primarily because accepting such offers harms my reputation as a reviewer no matter how honest my reviews were.
I got some really laughable emails saying things like, "We'll send you a product in exchange for a five-star review." Nope. No thanks. Or, "please post review with 3 pcs. pictures." Thanks but I do reviews my own way.
In responding to some of the offers, when I state that I say what I think and write reviews on behalf of the prospective buyer, not the seller, a lot of the free offers disappeared. But some remained, and when I received a bad product and wrote an unfavorable review, some manufacturers demanded that I remove it (not going to happen, if you sell a bad product, live with it).
But it got really distasteful so now I generally review things that I bought on my own.
However, I can easily see how the system has become very corrupt, and so I just don't take free products from manufacturers any longer.
Yep. And it is fun. You can pick up a $20 sextant off Amazon to play with (although you'd be better off with a more serious instrument). Like typewriters and other analog tools it slows you down and makes you think.
The "makes you think" part is what's really important here. Thinking leads to understanding ... sounds pretty valuable to me.
Try refuting that you're a raving anti-Semite.
I have to agree. Though it's quite common to use 21st century thought and practice to pass judgment on someone from another era where thought and practice differed greatly, there's some logic lacking in that. We might say that we're glad society has advanced since earlier times (to the extent that it has; I see both gains and losses), but to claim that someone such as Jefferson should be condemned for being a man of his era is a bit much.
Of course for some people (I'm thinking of a poster just below this thread), anything is excuse enough for an anti-American rant combined with a complete willingness to ignore the history of his/her own country, which undoubtedly can be criticized at least as much.
Turnabout is fair play, or however that goes.
It is all a setup for Windows 11. Windows 11 will be subscription based even they will not be able to run non-subscription Word or Excel.
This may be a blessing in disguise. People may have strong incentives or even be forced to get away from Windows once and for all. For those who truly have no choice (whether due to genuinely irreplaceable mission-critical software or corporate fiat), they will pay up on a monthly basis (no doubt 10% discount for paying a year in advance or some such).
I'd like to believe it will send many people to Linux (sadly, not likely), but Apple is the more likely beneficiary ... unless they get on the subscription bandwagon, too.
The Jews media
I thought your comment actually had some merit until I saw the above embedded in it. You've lost credibility, not just as a commenter but as a person.
I did that (hide the Windows 10 install update). Guess what? When I "check for updates" it's back, and selected by default. What are also back are the other updates I've hidden that backport telemetry to Windows 8.1 (although they at least aren't force-selected for install). Hiding does no good.
I have Windows 8.1 on a partition for use when I absolutely can't avoid doing something under Windows (thankfully not often). Otherwise I never even touch that steaming pile and run off my Linux partition, where I can get work done without having to watch my back, not just for hackers, but to protect myself from the vendor that wants our trust and does everything possible to lose it.
This is probably politically incorrect to say but, whatever you think of NSA .... I'm impressed with the fact that they've assembled a core staff of brilliant mathematicians who do amazing things ... whether you like those things or not.
Given what I expect your age is, maybe you just haven't learned much yet.
What you're saying is that his conclusions are politically incorrect and don't agree with what you feel compelled to believe, for whatever reasons.
I am not qualified to say who's right and who's wrong here. But I keep an open mind and listen to reasoned argument. The extremes (flat out deniers on one side and cataclysm mongers on the other) do neither.
This is sort of like the Chinese complaining that counterintelligence focuses on them as being in a group that provides possible spies for China.
What do you expect? Should counterintelligence focus on Swedes instead?
Get real. You focus on where the problem is likely to be. Is that somehow "discrimination" or "unfair" or just common sense?
So the woman must go find a career and work her ass off to be something, and raising a family has no value, right?
What has value is unencumbered freedom of choice. If a woman chooses to be an engineer, that is a valid choice. If a woman chooses to stay home and raise a family, that too is a valid choice; if she combines both, that's another valid choice.
We go wrong when we assume, based on our own values and choices, what someone else should choose to do. It's not up to us, it's up to them.
Definitely a slashdot editor's error, but besides poor editing, it seems like slashdot posts a lot of material that is poorly "reserched" with misleading headlines and questionable content.
I've seen this in places I've been too. Management will claim innocence and make a big show of punishing people lower in the organization. Looks like this process has already begun.
A few rogue engineers my foot.
Rogue engineers --- any engineers --- are not trusted with policy decisions of this magnitude. But they are, of course, set up to take the heat when it comes.
"I was just following orders" isn't going to cut it, though.
" liberal arts education so that when the students leave prison they are able to find meaningful work."
A liberal arts degree is infinitely better than no degree at all.
I'm glad to see prisoners getting a chance at education. One theoretical intent of prison is reform; our society hasn't done very well with that.
Sure, some prisoners are hopeless and would be a danger if ever released ... leave them inside. But give others a chance.
I'm guessing that most countries wouldn't want to be the subject of a real-world economic experiment...
Except that most countries are the subject of such experiments ... it's just that they are called "policy."
Except you've got the context wrong. I was referring to IBM as it
existed some while ago, before they joined the billable hours ratrace
that you describe all too well.
SJWs find an issue in everything. Their solution strikes me as being heavily biased toward quotas and reverse discrimination. They're not so interested in root causes. Finding and remedying root causes is work and work and whining just don't mix well for them.
Only a stupid company (or project or what-have-you) would fail to take advantage of talent. That's one thing I admired about the IBM of some years ago. They made full use of the talent pool without regard to race or gender (at least that's how it appeared to me from the outside). And that's the real answer: Make sure there are no untoward barriers to entry[1], and then make use of the talent that presents itself.
Anything else, like bemoaning imbalances and immediately ascribing that to prejudice, is just lazy SJW whining, pointing fingers and looking for problems without being willing to work toward real solutions.
[1] By this I do not mean take in any "underrepresented" member regardless of qualifications or ability. I mean instead, ensure that anyone with ability and interest is not excluded arbitrarily. For instance, give scholarships and work-study opportunities to people with talent but who can't otherwise afford college.
Professional behavior doesn't differ by gender. Even the words should be the same.
I never have to treat the women I work with differently because of their 'emotional state' or any gender issue.
I suggest that this is true because you instinctively treat people well and act in a professional manner. You may in fact be treating men and women differently without thinking that you are.
But the point is not that it's a problem, but that it's right. You're treating people as they would like to be treated. You're being considerate. You're keeping things on a professional, respectful plane.
If everyone did that, on both "sides" (as if there should even be "sides"), there would be few issues. And more productive work would definitely get done because the workplace would present a desirable environment conducive to doing work instead of having the destructive distraction of dealing with problem people.
Prehistoric men burned wood, which is neutral to the climate ....
You're obviously a Politically Incorrect Denier!
I thought it was global warming, you know, prehistoric man discovered fire, lit too many of them, and off we go.
Another of the LTBO crowd (Looking To Be Offended). Make excuses instead of looking for root causes and tackling those ... but that would be work, wouldn't it? That would be hard, so much harder than just placing blame on the evil white people.
Excuses and complaints don't cut it. There are minority members who rose from difficult circumstances and made it big. Here's a hint: they didn't rise to the top by complaining.